Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/St. Louis Cardinals seasons

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I believe this list of completed St. Louis Cardinals seasons meets the criteria for a featured list. It includes links to articles for each individual season and follows the precedents set by current featured lists Chicago Bears seasons, Cleveland Browns seasons, and Minnesota Vikings seasons, while adapting that style to suit a baseball format. It has an appropriate size lead, footnotes for additional information, and references. Support as creator. Timpcrk87 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Now Support The team has won 10 WS and is over 120 years old. Surely therefore, the lead can be longer. Buc 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead does mention both of those points. But this is the lead for a list, not the team history so I'm not sure what you think should be included to make it longer. The WP:FLC criteria 2(a) states "a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections". Timpcrk87 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Records
• Stats
• Up/down eras
• Ballparks

Buc 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The table is replacing the "standard" Seasons (league season) with the Team (Team seasons) column. Also, no reason whatsoever to put all text at 90%. Circeus 00:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the seasons column with the wikilinks, I can't remember if I left that out on purpose or accident, but it's there now. I also increased the font size to 95%, but I think it just looks out of whack if you go any larger. Plus, the other FLs use 95% font. Timpcrk87 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it should be at 95% and not full size. There certainly hasn't been any such reason for the other season FL... Also, can I suggest giving those team name separations a different background color? See the bg-foo templates in Category:Function templates for some "standardized" colors. And please don't hog me tomy talk page. I do watch nom pages I comment at, and will change my votes if I see fit. Circeus 01:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I highlighted the changes in team name with the team colors. I also increased the font size to 100%, it looks a little off to me at full size font, but maybe I'm just used to looking at the list with a smaller size and it looks normal to everyone else, I don't know. Either way, its at full size now.Timpcrk87 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - regardless of what the reasoning may or may not be for the 95% font size, it is established precedent, and it is my opinion that we should stick to that precedent in order to achieve FL status. One person all of a sudden saying "100% is the way to go" shouldn't override three featured lists; conversely, my opinion shouldn't necessarily invalidate Circeus. Having said that, I think it should go back to 95%, since all the other lists use that standard. Anthony Hit me up... 03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad if they do use 95%. I had simply assumed they were at 100% The difference is so slight forme tat I wouldn't have known if you hadn't stated it here. I personally think the colors are a wee bit too sharp, but they do a good job as dividers XD Circeus 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak opposeSupport. Buc makes some good points. For one, you could include a small footnote at each season where they change stadiums. You could also throw in a small sentence or two in the lead about long stretches of success/failure of the squad. I know these are only minor points, but they're easily fixable, and everything else is fine, so once these are addressed, I'll be glad to change my vote. Anthony Hit me up... 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)All my points were addressed. The lead is not so unbearably long (especially given the length of the list), and the added information about moving stadiums and such adds to the article (I especially like the note about longest streak out of last place... that's a LONG time). Good job! Anthony Hit me up... 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I added to the lead stuff about successful eras and down eras. I was reluctant to add much to the lead because I do not want this to become a team history article (there already is one of those), but you guys seem to be in agreement that more needed to be written.
• I also added notes when the team changed ballparks.
• A few more notes to clarify other points (third oldest, streak w/o last place finish, Auggie Busch).

Timpcrk87 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support My concerns were taken care of. Circeus 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)